Talk:Richard O'Connor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Richard O'Connor is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 26, 2005.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Military work group.
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] A few thoughts

First my sincere thanks to my good friend Leithp for his help and encouragement in getting this article up to something resembling Feature status. Without his collaboration I would have not had the confidence to submit it for your consideration.

If Plutarch were alive today, he would be pretty damned old. But if he were to somehow summon up the will and inspiration to do an updated version of the Parallel Lives, he would surely pair up O'Connor and Erwin Rommel. For in both personality and career their lives shared many parallels. They were scholar-soldiers who enjoyed writing, learning and teaching. Strongly patriotic yet at their core, pragmatic problem solvers. They preferred commanding from the front, a brave and noble habit but one which would prove costly to O'Connor's freedom and Rommel's health. Both distinguished themselves in the First World War, yet were dismayed by the wasteful slaughter. Consequently, they became masters of armored operations in the following war. Yet the two great desert tankers, never really had a fair showdown with one another, which had it occured, would have doubtless been one of the war's most spectacular clashes of commanders. Much as Rommel, later, would never get a fair shot at Montgomery. Montgomery would also prove to be O'Connor's bain, as well, by denying him the support, forces and operational leeway he needed to accomplish his missions (Though Leithp strongly disagrees with me here ;). Both would end up in differnt sorts of internal exile. O'Connor, kicked upstairs and exiled to India, where great desert generals went to watch their careers die. For Rommel exile would be a series of extended leaves, some for legitimate medical reasons, but others politically motivated. Exile for O'Connor would end in retirement, for Rommel in death. Both thrown away by the regimes they had served so abily. In death, Rommel has become a legend, whilst O'Connor was largely forgotten in his long and distinguished post-war life. It was in working on the article on the legendary Rommel, that I became interested in the man who was very much his counterpart in history and might well have proven his most worthy opponent. And one whose story needed to be told as well. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page

I'm very late in mentioning it, but this page has been listed on WP:TFA as a potential candidate for appearing on the Main Page. The current proposal is December 8th, the start of Operation Compass. Comments on this, or other proposed dates, can be made on WP:TFA. Leithp (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Birth place?

Was Richard born in Srinigar or Srinagar? I found a source that says he was born in Srinigar. Are they distinct places? ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Srinagar is both the name of a distict and its capital city. So was he born in the district or in the town? Srinigar, if it is a different place, is also in the same area. So he may have been born in Srinigar in Srinagar district. For now, to avoid further confusion and edit wars, let's just let the older version stand until the frenzy dies down and we can discuss and make changes at a more thoughtful pace. This is difficult to do when every 10 minutes some IP Freely anon vandal blanks the entire article or adds in some witless vulgarity or sexually retarded remark.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Many Indian towns and cities have a number of variations in spelling when transliterated into English, it may be an old-fashioned spelling of the same place.Dabbler 17:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact Srinigar calls the place Srinagar in the first bolded word of the page! Dabbler 17:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
My guess is Srinagar and Srinigar are one in the same place. They went "A Vowel too far" ;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I have confirmed that Srinigar and Srinagar are the same and have proposed a merger on their discussion pages.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabet soup of all the Knighthoods in the first sentence

It is an immediate turn-off to read the first sentence as:

General Sir Richard Nugent O'Connor , KT , GCB , GBE , DSO , MC , ADC (August 21, 1889 – June 17, 1981) was a...

I don't think Sir Richard ever signed his name like that, and if he did I think one might reconsider the section on how humble he was.  :) I personally think it would suffice to just say he received four decorations of knighthood and some other awards...then let the article body provide the details. But if they *are* to be mentioned by name, it shouldn't be in the first sentence, and not by abbreviation. See this version ... I'd also think that the redundancy of saying he's a British General would mean we can strike the General in the start.Metaeducation 20:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As you are doubtless aware, it is British custom and tradition to put titular abbreviations after the name of notable personnages upon introduction. No, it is not very amenable to casual or non-British readers unfamilar with the practice, but in this case it can be argued appropriate for the subject, as is the use of British spellings and other conventions which Leithp and I have maintained throughout the article. But since these are recent additions, I will go along with your arguement and remove them, at least for now.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The correct albeit formal style, as used on other British military officers pages see Claude Auchinleck or Bernard Law Montgomery for examples of his North African contemporaries, would be to include all the important orders and decorations (i.e. up to the MC, ADC is a post not a decoration though sometimes an honorary one as in "ADC to the King"). To do otherwise is a rather petty insult to his memory. Dabbler 05:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This would be moot if there should be a standard regarding the application of post-nominal letters on Wikipedia. I propose someone lift this discussion to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) and its talk page, and lobby for a consistent strategy...maybe there's even a template trick that can achieve a compromise.
FWIW, my American friends and I feel that leaving them out of the lead makes it seem like the authors of the article took the time to write in "English"! Because I like to avoid redundancy, I would prefer to focus on keeping category tags up to date—they are much more useful. (For instance, I just used "Category:Knights of the Order of the Bath" to look at the list and see no real current standard). Metaeducation 01:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), the initials and awarded titles such as knighthoods etc. should not be in the Title of the article but should be included in the text, especially of British and Commonwealth figures. [[Ronald Reagan}} would not have any post nominals as in his culture they were not the accepoted practice, O'Connor is British not American, so British usage should be used. I am having a break until after New year so will not be able to respond to any comments but I think the whole proposal to be incredibly insulting to British figures. Dabbler 15:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I triggered a debate about whether Wikipedia has (or should have) a formal policy on the use of post-nominal letters in the first sentence of autobiographical articles. Because this is in no way specific to O'Connor, I have moved the discussion to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) (link)—. Please invite any interested parties to the discussion. Metaeducation 16:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

As a compromise measure I've moved the "Alpha Soup" of honorifics to Sir Richard's biobox. This should show the General his due respect but avoids redundancy and offending the (in)sensibilities of the typical American reader. Also, as an American myself, statements such as FWIW, my American friends and I feel that leaving them out of the lead makes it seem like the authors of the article took the time to write in "English"! Does not make us look good. But rather arrogant and culturally illiterate. Typing of which, I find your arbitrary move of our discussion here, which IS relevent to this article, to be such. Neither Dabbler nor myself agreed to it. I, personally, do not wish to participate in the debate. I feel I have more productive uses for my time here. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I gave my rationale to moving the discussion to the Manual of Style, yet you have not explained how O'Connor is uniquely affected by the post-nominal debate. I feel badly for not being wise to the idea that this was a widespread issue in the first place—my refactor was geared around saying things how I should have initially said them and where I should have said it. So I'd appreciate it if you put this section of the talk page back to my summary. Your initiative in working on the bio box is cool—though I hope you don't feel I was trying to pressure you to change this particular article prior to a policy consensus. I will describe it as a possibility in the Manual of Style discussion, as you claim to not have a particular interest in participating in the debate there. Metaeducation 22:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


As I've said, I do not mind at all you starting a debate there, but I DO mind you deleteing the one here. This was unnecessary. Also unfair to Dabbler, who made it CLEAR he will be unable to participate further until the new year. I did, restore your "notice" of it, if you will notice. Plus it is clearly an issue which effects THIS article, indeed which grew out of it. So keeping some vestage of it here in its original form is relevent and useful IMHO. I'm glad you approve of my compromise. I hope it meets with the approval of Dabbler and other Commonwealth subjects too--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV of Assessment Section

This section is important and actually contains an analysis suited to go into the lead, because it's what the casual reader actually cares about. But as written it doesn't sound very academic. Examine statements:

  • "it has also caused him to be largely and unjustly overlooked" (unjust?)
  • "his unfortunate capture" (can't it just say capture?)
  • "Yet he never seemed unduly bitter or resentful" (seemed? unduly?)

This can be condensed and support for his significance can be drawn from his various awards. This strikes me as an appropriate place to be listing what they were, in the lead. See this version Metaeducation 20:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said, all this was discussed earlier when the article was an FAC. The casual reader can skim, explore and take what they will from it. I only wanted to create a readable, enjoyable and sympathetic bio on one of the Second World War's forgotten heroes. I wanted to praise the General, not just bury him in terse prose. The assessment section was needed for this reason. I think it succeeds in being sympathetic without being Hagiographic. It also raises and tries to answer a question fundemental to the article's Wik-istance: Why has O'Connor, given his impressive accomplishments, been largely forgotten? And in doing so it also answers some questions about the man himself, his personality and CHARACHTER. When dealing with such issues, it is very difficult not to be, at least a bit POV. If we did not care about our subjects, one way or another, then why bother writing, or reading, about them at all... --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping Focus on O'Connor in lead

If a casual reader is attempting to understand whether to read the rest of the article, it seems that strange details were chosen to put in the lead—such as who O'Connor was imprisoned with. I'm sure O'Connor was around many famous historical figures, but naming one or two breaks continuity. If details of his imprisonment and his escape are truly worth putting in the lead, then perhaps it deserves more intriguing selections in a second paragraph with an appropriate topic sentence. A complete summary of his tour of duty makes a nice opening paragraph in any case. See this version Metaeducation 20:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Those were older edits I allowed to stay because 1)They lead the reader into other, related bios on some equally intriguing persons which the casual reader may also enjoy. 2) Many complained during this article's FAC discussion that the lead was "too short". Having a couple of names in helps to pad it out a bit. I know you like to remove what you deem as unneeded and redundant words, but that path does not always lead to an FA. Compromises must be made. So while I removed the word General, I'm keeping Generals De Wiart and Neame in..for now --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changed his name to LESSAR CP

I changed his name to Lessar CP in honor of the royal FLYING DOCTOR SERVICE. LESSAR CP was a doctor during the battle of the atolls. He saved the life of O'connor...

Nothing personal, Mortek MC, but you are a loon.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] You can help (and you did:)

Thanks!

Thanks to all who helped take care of this article while it was on the mainpage. The RC patrol and CV unit truly ROCK most righteously, and I salute you! Once more, thanks --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Those post-nominals again

I hate to be a bore, but thewhole point of post-nominal initials should go with the name not isolated off in a corner. If you are going to do that then just write them up in the article, stating when and for what they were awarded. They are an essential part of the full name, not some caption to be squeezed in at a convenient place. I experimented with moving them above the picture with his name but that probably makes them too prominent. Moving his name into the caption area makes that too small. Can we adjust the font sizes or are they fixed somewhere? Dabbler 12:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You can increase font size using <big> & </big>, and probably also by using some HTML code that's way over my head. Leithp (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I actually moved the initials while making them smaller to the correct place and put them after his name, albeit on a new line.Dabbler 15:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
It looks fine to me Dabbler...I think Sir Richard would approve. As I stated in our discussion on my talkpage, just so long as they don't appear in BOTH the introductory sentence AND the biobox. That would be a bit much. But you did good, no objections. Cheers--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Personally I do not think it is correct not to use the full General Sir Richard O'Connor at least as that was his legal name/title whilst living. Post nominals should also be included fully. It is naive to think that anyone on wikipedia has the right to change the styling of an individual in the name of ease or readability. There are rules as to how to refer to people as decree by the Garter King at Arms and indirectly the Sovereign. Manxy3 19:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the Order of the Thistle?

While O'Connor is an Irish sounding name, and he is listed under the Irish origin people category. I was wondering why O'Connor was given the Order of the Thistle which is by far the most prestigious Scottish order. Was it for his post-war Scottish church work or just generally being a good Scottish person? If so shouldn't it be explained. Most British generals of the time who weren't given a peerage ended up with the Order of the Bath which O'Connor also received. Dabbler 13:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about his ancestry but he also joined a Scottish regiment (The Cameronians (Scottish Rifles)) when he got his commission, so it seems he had very strong links there. Leithp 13:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Fergananim was kind enough and curious enough to do some research into O'Connor's ancestry. Here's what he found: According to Richard Docherty's Ireland's Generals in World War II, "His father, Maurice O'Connor, retired in 1894 but died following an accident in 1903. Up to that point it seems Richard lived at Ballybrock with his parents. However, after Maurice's death, his widow Lillian Morris returned home to Scotland. This is where the strong ties to Scotland come in. Had his father lived, O'Connor would probably have joined his father's unit. Lillian was the daughter of Sir John Morris, KCIS (Knight Commander of the Star of India), who at one time was Governor of India's central provinces." So his mother was Scottish and but for a tragic twist of fate, he might have ended up as a Knight of the Order of St Patrick instead.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No he wouldn't as they stopped non royal awards in 1922, long before he would have been considered. So he'd have had the Thistle anywayAlci12 16:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference tag war

As an outsider to editing this article, I'd like to comment on how absurd this article looks to someone wanting to read the article. It is not possible to read with all the "citation needed" tags attached to nearly every sentence. Massive overkill. I think we get the point.

Please someone remove all that nonsense in favor of just tagging it unreferenced at the beginning of the article! I'd do it myself, but it seems this is a petty revert war, and I don't have the desire to be involved in that. Just be sensible and change it for the sake of Wikipedia. Civil Engineer III 13:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't blame the players, blame the game....blame WP:WIAFA 1C--70.171.22.74 15:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a case of Ghost, the primary author of the article, being very upset with how the article has been treated by the FAR-regulars, which is in many ways justified. However, I don't believe the article will in any way be improved with just random fact tagging. I understand and have some sympathies for Ghost's disillusionment over how certain parts of the the community have spoiled the fruits of his hard labor, but I don't believe our readers will benefit from him merely doing the dirty work of the sticklers who made him throw up his hands in the first place. This is a very clear case of WP:POINT. I won't revert any more, but I do encourage others to revert the anon (which appears to be Ghost's) and try to discuss the need for more sources or citation in a level-headed and reasonable manner.
Peter Isotalo 18:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Reading over this talk page, I believe the fundamental problem is that one user wanted to create "a readable, enjoyable and sympathetic bio on one of the Second World War's forgotten heroes" rather than an objective, sourced collection of facts. Wikipedia is a collaborative, multi-national, multi-lingual project; it is an inferno that boils subtlety into nothingness. The second lesson is that you should never, ever care about the subject. -Ashley Pomeroy 15:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Well stated Ashley...that sums up the situation quite nicely. Which is another reason why it is better that this article be purged of all unsouced statements and rewritten. You are, of course, free to use my earler version as a sort of rough draft and the references will still be there at the end so you won't be starting completely from scratch. In the meantime I will continue to remove any uncited materials I find in this article. They have been marked for 2 months now. That is plenty of time for someone who really cares to have done a little homework and backed them up. This article is a derelect old home, which is no longer up to code. Unless repairs are made demolition will proceed. Your choice is simple; either make the needed repairs or get out of the wrecking ball's way. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Ashley, to demand that we "never, ever care about the subject" is a very disagreeable concoction of cynicism and impossibly lofty ideals. If prime content was written only by people without passion for the topic, articles would, for a lack of better words, suck ass. The biggest problem here is not someone caring too much, but the asinine and overly techoncratic notion that any random fact statement is guilty of being utter claptrap until proven innocent by the umpteenth footnote.
Peter Isotalo 09:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the article has a lot of needs, as do most of the articles in WP. But adding a bunch of tags throughout the text is thoroughly unnecessary and makes the article unreadable. Why isn't it good enough to have a blanket tag at the beginning of the article?? And why would you revert all of my edits, which many had nothing to do with your agenda? Civil Engineer III 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Then don't read it. Policy is on my side. This article contains unsourced statements which may be, and have been, removed. If you start proving citations, I will stop removing passages. Peter has the good sense to let it go. You would profit from his example.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

This is a dispute about whether to use the

 This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2007)

tag in lieu of several {{Fact}} tags throughout the article.

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute
  • It is not possible to read with all the "citation needed" tags attached to nearly every sentence. Massive overkill. I think we get the point. Please someone remove all that nonsense in favor of just tagging it unreferenced at the beginning of the article!Civil Engineer III 13:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • ...it is better that this article be purged of all unsouced statements and rewritten. ...I will continue to remove any uncited materials I find in this article. ...Unless repairs are made demolition will proceed.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • ...adding a bunch of tags throughout the text is thoroughly unnecessary and makes the article unreadable. Why isn't it good enough to have a blanket tag at the beginning of the article?? Civil Engineer III 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Comments
  • To remove all tagged unsourced statements would be unnecessry butchery, IMO. Since someone has taken the trouble to add cn tags, however, it would be courteous and useful to try to clear them. I'll have a go. CN tags may interrupt the flow, but they provide clear pointers and, for me, highlight areas that need attention. Unsatisfied cn tags can be left, IMO, as a prompt and a caution. Folks at 137 05:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sofa So Good

(As the used furniture salesman said) Just stopped by to offer my congrads on the good work so far. You have added mucho citations (Folks at 137, Mkpumphrey, Kernel Saunters and Kirrages are to be especially commended here:) and Dormskirk has restored the good General's image, well done sir! But there are still LOADS of uncited passages and we have a long ways to go before this article is up to code once more. Progress has been made, albeit slowly, and I'm pleased by your efforts thus far. So I'm granting a temporary reprieve to uncited materials. Keep up the good work! But remember, I'm keeping an eye or two out. I'm a patient man, but if I see too little progress I will commence demolition again with little or no warning. If we can only get this up to A or GA quality, I will be satisfied and let the matter rest. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Almost there!

We are almost there! Only a few more cites, mainly at the bottom of the Normandy section, and we will be ready to advance! January 13 2008 was the best day Sir Richard's article has had since December 26 2005. My faith in Wikipedia's processes and power structure may have been shattered beyond repair, but my faith in all the many, fine editors labouring away in the trenches remains intact and has been further reinforced by all your fine efforts here. It has been a long time since I've been as plesantly surprised by anything here on the WP. Thank you! And here's to the final push!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)